Camper van purchase & subsequent catastrophic MOT failure
Discussion
I shall try and make this as succinct as possible…
Wife bought a converted transit in October. She bought it from a local business who usually do van conversions on vehicles brought to them by clients but in this case had bought the van and converted it themselves.
The original ad stated that the bodywork was in good condition, a few age-related dings and minor rust on sills; MOT history supports this assessment, the only item on 2022’s MOT was an advisory for a bad windscreen wiper.
First MOT in her ownership failed quite catastrophically this week, largely due to basically a completely rotten chassis, as well as some other quite unsafe items, including a large amount of expanding foam sprayed underneath it to fill some of the holes.
No local bodyshop/welder will touch it; reason being it’s a horrible, expensive job and there’s no guarantee it’ll even pass the MOT afterwards. In addition, everyone who has seen it says the extent of the rot suggests there’s no way it wouldn’t already have been pretty nasty last year, which certainly casts doubt over the legitimacy of the MOT centre who did it last year, who also happened to be the garage that was selling it, although not to my wife.
My question is, is this a case of caveat emptor or does she have recourse under the CRA to seek compensation from the people she got it from? Is it reasonable to expect someone to jack up a vehicle prior to purchase?
Wife bought a converted transit in October. She bought it from a local business who usually do van conversions on vehicles brought to them by clients but in this case had bought the van and converted it themselves.
The original ad stated that the bodywork was in good condition, a few age-related dings and minor rust on sills; MOT history supports this assessment, the only item on 2022’s MOT was an advisory for a bad windscreen wiper.
First MOT in her ownership failed quite catastrophically this week, largely due to basically a completely rotten chassis, as well as some other quite unsafe items, including a large amount of expanding foam sprayed underneath it to fill some of the holes.
No local bodyshop/welder will touch it; reason being it’s a horrible, expensive job and there’s no guarantee it’ll even pass the MOT afterwards. In addition, everyone who has seen it says the extent of the rot suggests there’s no way it wouldn’t already have been pretty nasty last year, which certainly casts doubt over the legitimacy of the MOT centre who did it last year, who also happened to be the garage that was selling it, although not to my wife.
My question is, is this a case of caveat emptor or does she have recourse under the CRA to seek compensation from the people she got it from? Is it reasonable to expect someone to jack up a vehicle prior to purchase?
Geesh, unlucky. Recent similar case here about dodgy MOT; might be useful.
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
SydneyBridge said:
Are there any similar issues with any online reviews?
Of the vendor she got it from? No, and no red flags during purchase process. Of the garage who did the MOT last year? Plenty to suggest they’re a bit scummy, also their listings state their vehicles all come with a fresh ticket. We assume they also sold the van as there was an ownership transfer same month as MOT.
TheDrownedApe said:
Geesh, unlucky. Recent similar case here about dodgy MOT; might be useful.
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Ta. Will take a look. https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Canon_Fodder said:
Hmmmm Banger age van, rust mentioned in ad....
Hard to see a way back for your wife here OP.
Buying these type of things is perhaps a fairly dark art, and one in which your wife was not well versed
I would have thought that explicitly saying ‘there’s a bit of rust on the sills’ would give the impression that there’s a bit of rust but only on the sills. Hard to see a way back for your wife here OP.
Buying these type of things is perhaps a fairly dark art, and one in which your wife was not well versed
georgejoshington said:
I shall try and make this as succinct as possible…
Wife bought a converted transit in October. She bought it from a local business who usually do van conversions on vehicles brought to them by clients but in this case had bought the van and converted it themselves.
The original ad stated that the bodywork was in good condition, a few age-related dings and minor rust on sills; MOT history supports this assessment, the only item on 2022’s MOT was an advisory for a bad windscreen wiper.
First MOT in her ownership failed quite catastrophically this week, largely due to basically a completely rotten chassis, as well as some other quite unsafe items, including a large amount of expanding foam sprayed underneath it to fill some of the holes.
No local bodyshop/welder will touch it; reason being it’s a horrible, expensive job and there’s no guarantee it’ll even pass the MOT afterwards. In addition, everyone who has seen it says the extent of the rot suggests there’s no way it wouldn’t already have been pretty nasty last year, which certainly casts doubt over the legitimacy of the MOT centre who did it last year, who also happened to be the garage that was selling it, although not to my wife.
My question is, is this a case of caveat emptor or does she have recourse under the CRA to seek compensation from the people she got it from? Is it reasonable to expect someone to jack up a vehicle prior to purchase?
Are you sure the foam was sprayed to cover the holes?Wife bought a converted transit in October. She bought it from a local business who usually do van conversions on vehicles brought to them by clients but in this case had bought the van and converted it themselves.
The original ad stated that the bodywork was in good condition, a few age-related dings and minor rust on sills; MOT history supports this assessment, the only item on 2022’s MOT was an advisory for a bad windscreen wiper.
First MOT in her ownership failed quite catastrophically this week, largely due to basically a completely rotten chassis, as well as some other quite unsafe items, including a large amount of expanding foam sprayed underneath it to fill some of the holes.
No local bodyshop/welder will touch it; reason being it’s a horrible, expensive job and there’s no guarantee it’ll even pass the MOT afterwards. In addition, everyone who has seen it says the extent of the rot suggests there’s no way it wouldn’t already have been pretty nasty last year, which certainly casts doubt over the legitimacy of the MOT centre who did it last year, who also happened to be the garage that was selling it, although not to my wife.
My question is, is this a case of caveat emptor or does she have recourse under the CRA to seek compensation from the people she got it from? Is it reasonable to expect someone to jack up a vehicle prior to purchase?
People foam spray steel things for heat insulation.
If it's done wrong, it can cause rusting between the foam and the steel.
I've seen what happens when this goes bad with a steel boat made of 8mm plate. A Transit is thin metal to start with.
Where was the 2021 MOT done?
Devon in knee deep in rusty vans with crusties festering in them.
Doesn’t help, but if she purchased in October and it was newly converted why did the company not sell it with a years MOT.
Seems strange to convert a van and sell (and purchase) with only 3 / 4 month left on the MOT.
Not being critical on purchasing with few months MOT, but did your wife ask for a full year when buying the van.
Seems strange to convert a van and sell (and purchase) with only 3 / 4 month left on the MOT.
Not being critical on purchasing with few months MOT, but did your wife ask for a full year when buying the van.
These conversions are usually not cheap, it seems bizarre to invest that into a rusty old van.
Was the conversion possibly done years ago and the conversion company took it in PX or something?
It was a crazy corner of the motor trade during covid, with 2 year delivery times, rising s/h prices and all sorts of people jumping into the business.
Was the conversion possibly done years ago and the conversion company took it in PX or something?
It was a crazy corner of the motor trade during covid, with 2 year delivery times, rising s/h prices and all sorts of people jumping into the business.
georgejoshington said:
Canon_Fodder said:
Q's
1. Wife is a consumer, not a business?
2. Age of transit?
1. Correct, consumer. Seller operates under a business name, but not sure if LTD company or sole trader. 1. Wife is a consumer, not a business?
2. Age of transit?
2. Over 10 years.
Transits aren’t exactly renowned for their structural integrity at the best of times.
I've copied this across from another thread regarding an engine failure.
This would come under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015). If bought in October, February is the fifth month so you would have a case.
My copied advice:
As this occurred within 6 months of purchase, and providing it was a business to consumer transaction and not business to business, then the dealer will have to prove that the fault was NOT there at the time of purchase. This, I imagine, would be very difficult for them to. The right to reject has gone as that's within the first 30 days. After 6 months, the onus switches to the purchaser having to prove the fault WAS there at the time of purchase.
You can now offer them the right to repair or replace it. They have one chance and if the repair/replacement doesn't work, you have the right to a refund. This may not be a full one as you've had some use of the van.
OP - make them aware now, don't necessarily start going "my rights etc", and see what happens. If they play hard ball, then you can go down the "well actually the Consumer Rights Act 2015 says..".
Ultimately, if they still say no, issue a Letter Before Action giving them 14 days to fix it or you'll have it fixed and pursue them for the cost. Send this by recorded delivery to their business address.
Ultimately in this case, you'll almost certainly need a statement from an independent company (such as the place you've taken the camper to) stating its condition and that it was likely to have been like it last year. Rust is seemingly a tricky one!
This would come under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015). If bought in October, February is the fifth month so you would have a case.
My copied advice:
As this occurred within 6 months of purchase, and providing it was a business to consumer transaction and not business to business, then the dealer will have to prove that the fault was NOT there at the time of purchase. This, I imagine, would be very difficult for them to. The right to reject has gone as that's within the first 30 days. After 6 months, the onus switches to the purchaser having to prove the fault WAS there at the time of purchase.
You can now offer them the right to repair or replace it. They have one chance and if the repair/replacement doesn't work, you have the right to a refund. This may not be a full one as you've had some use of the van.
OP - make them aware now, don't necessarily start going "my rights etc", and see what happens. If they play hard ball, then you can go down the "well actually the Consumer Rights Act 2015 says..".
Ultimately, if they still say no, issue a Letter Before Action giving them 14 days to fix it or you'll have it fixed and pursue them for the cost. Send this by recorded delivery to their business address.
Ultimately in this case, you'll almost certainly need a statement from an independent company (such as the place you've taken the camper to) stating its condition and that it was likely to have been like it last year. Rust is seemingly a tricky one!
Powerfully Built Company Directors Secretary said:
I've copied this across from another thread regarding an engine failure.
This would come under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015). If bought in October, February is the fifth month so you would have a case.
My copied advice:
As this occurred within 6 months of purchase, and providing it was a business to consumer transaction and not business to business, then the dealer will have to prove that the fault was NOT there at the time of purchase. This, I imagine, would be very difficult for them to. The right to reject has gone as that's within the first 30 days. After 6 months, the onus switches to the purchaser having to prove the fault WAS there at the time of purchase.
You can now offer them the right to repair or replace it. They have one chance and if the repair/replacement doesn't work, you have the right to a refund. This may not be a full one as you've had some use of the van.
OP - make them aware now, don't necessarily start going "my rights etc", and see what happens. If they play hard ball, then you can go down the "well actually the Consumer Rights Act 2015 says..".
Ultimately, if they still say no, issue a Letter Before Action giving them 14 days to fix it or you'll have it fixed and pursue them for the cost. Send this by recorded delivery to their business address.
Ultimately in this case, you'll almost certainly need a statement from an independent company (such as the place you've taken the camper to) stating its condition and that it was likely to have been like it last year. Rust is seemingly a tricky one!
Appreciated. We’ve not gone charging in so far, will escalate along suggested route if we don’t get anywhere with the gentle approach. This would come under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015). If bought in October, February is the fifth month so you would have a case.
My copied advice:
As this occurred within 6 months of purchase, and providing it was a business to consumer transaction and not business to business, then the dealer will have to prove that the fault was NOT there at the time of purchase. This, I imagine, would be very difficult for them to. The right to reject has gone as that's within the first 30 days. After 6 months, the onus switches to the purchaser having to prove the fault WAS there at the time of purchase.
You can now offer them the right to repair or replace it. They have one chance and if the repair/replacement doesn't work, you have the right to a refund. This may not be a full one as you've had some use of the van.
OP - make them aware now, don't necessarily start going "my rights etc", and see what happens. If they play hard ball, then you can go down the "well actually the Consumer Rights Act 2015 says..".
Ultimately, if they still say no, issue a Letter Before Action giving them 14 days to fix it or you'll have it fixed and pursue them for the cost. Send this by recorded delivery to their business address.
Ultimately in this case, you'll almost certainly need a statement from an independent company (such as the place you've taken the camper to) stating its condition and that it was likely to have been like it last year. Rust is seemingly a tricky one!
stevemcs said:
W hats rotten, the side steps or the chassis leg ?
Behold:Do not drive until repaired (dangerous defects):
Offside Front Brake pipe connection leaking on a hydraulic braking system (1.1.11 (b) (ii))
Repair immediately (major defects):
Offside Rear Brake pipe excessively corroded (1.1.11 (c))
Nearside Front Brake pipe excessively corroded (1.1.11 (c))
Offside Front Suspension component mounting prescribed area excessively corroded significantly reducing structural strength inner arch (5.3.6 (a) (i))
Nearside Front Suspension component mounting prescribed area excessively corroded significantly reducing structural strength inner arch (5.3.6 (a) (i))
Offside Rear Suspension component mounting prescribed area excessively corroded significantly reducing structural strength inner arch (5.3.6 (a) (i))
Nearside Rear Outer Suspension component mounting prescribed area excessively corroded significantly reducing structural strength sill (5.3.6 (a) (i))
Nearside Rear Suspension component mounting prescribed area excessively corroded significantly reducing structural strength inner arch (5.3.6 (a) (i))
Nearside Rear Suspension component mounting prescribed area excessively corroded significantly reducing structural strength Chassis (5.3.6 (a) (i))
Offside Front Lower Suspension arm ball joint excessively worn (5.3.4 (a) (i))
Exhaust emissions test not completed because smoke levels are significantly in excess of the specified limit values (8.2.2.2 (f))
Monitor and repair if necessary (advisories):
Chassis and underside of vehicle corroded/heavily undersealed in places
Offside Front Engine mount mounting point corroded
Nearside Brake pipe corroded, covered in grease or other material front to rear (1.1.11 (c))
Offside Brake pipe corroded, covered in grease or other material front to rear (1.1.11 (c))
Oil leak, but not excessive (8.4.1 (a) (i))
Nearside Front Lower Suspension arm pin or bush worn but not resulting in excessive movement (5.3.4 (a) (i))
Offside Front Lower Suspension arm pin or bush worn but not resulting in excessive movement (5.3.4 (a) (i))
Nearside Front Inner Sill holed
Offside Front Inner Sill holed
OutInTheShed said:
These conversions are usually not cheap, it seems bizarre to invest that into a rusty old van.
Was the conversion possibly done years ago and the conversion company took it in PX or something?
It was a crazy corner of the motor trade during covid, with 2 year delivery times, rising s/h prices and all sorts of people jumping into the business.
The conversion was done in 2022. It wouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility that the converter didn't know the extent of the rot, but it seems a little insane if you're about to convert something and sell it through your business to not ensure its roadworthiness. Was the conversion possibly done years ago and the conversion company took it in PX or something?
It was a crazy corner of the motor trade during covid, with 2 year delivery times, rising s/h prices and all sorts of people jumping into the business.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff